Narratives

"I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, [...] What is going on in these pictures in my mind?" -- Joan Didion

When I'm describing what I want Collision Course to be, I usually point to Didion's quote. This blog is where I get to jot down thoughts about what's on my mind right now. 

At the moment, Edward Snowden and the current debate on internet privacy is on my mind. The debate over whether Orwell was right and computers will be a tool of oppression is still one that is very much up in the air. [1] Whether or not tech giants were complicit, the news that the NSA PRISM program tapped into the user data of tech giants such as Apple and Google puts a sour tinge on the iconic 1984 Apple Macintosh commercial, which explained why '1984 won't be like “1984"'. The entire PRISM program casts a shadow on the belief that computers and the internet are a force for justice and transparency. 

Tangentially related to this debate, and arguably its precipitation, are the Snowden leaks. Was what he did moral? Was what he did the best way to start the debate? Are there any good, well-nuanced arguments to say that what he did was wrong? How much surveillance is too much surveillance? Is any level of surveillance desirable? Put another way -- is our problem with the NSA that they overstepped their brief, or is it that their mandate existed at all? I find it hard to believe that many people believe that there should be no surveillance.

I feel that a lot of Snowden evangelists and detractors assume positions in response to these questions that are ultimately too simplistic. We know from behavioral analysis that people like being part of a group, and feel a stronger affinity towards that group when it's threatened by external forces ([2]) and I wonder to what extent this us-versus-them mentality is reducing the nuance of everyone's argument. Snowden probably isn't solely a traitor or the world's biggest patriot, and it's reductive to argue in favor of either definition.

I recently read Luke Harding's "The Snowden Files" and am in the process of formulating my own responses to the above questions. (Next job: read something as well-researched and comprehensive on the subject by someone who isn't a journalist at the paper that benefits (in terms of economics and prestige) from having a book trumpeting its successes. I'm not saying the Guardian didn't do some kick-ass work reporting on the Snowden revelations, it's just that NYC's made me cynical. :-)

Final interesting note, for now: It's interesting how much Harding's book, despite its flaws, reads like a modern-day All The President's Men. To what extent is the Snowden affair my generation's Watergate?

(Ed. note: An edited version of this post also appeared on Medium.com with the subtitle "Snowden isn’t entirely a traitor or the world’s biggest patriot, and it’s reductive to argue in favor of either definition.")

====

[1] I recently read Huxley's Brave New World because there's a lot of argument going on these days on whether Huxley or Orwell were more accurate in their predictions of dystopia. Personally, I think the world in 2014 is more Orwellian than Huxley-esque, but Huxley got uncomfortably close to aspects of everyday life. I'm in the process of writing a longer essay on this subject -- stay tuned.

[2] "While regarded in much of the psychological literature as a "universal" phenomenon, this biasing tendency of loyalty can be enhanced by events that cause tension or are perceived as threatening to one's view of one's own nation." Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social Psychological Perspective